1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to security and authentication, specifically to an improved, secure, identification and authentication system.
2. Description of Prior Art
Security cards, tags, and seals are used for identification, verification and authentication to protect and control assets, entry, access, and information. Such devices can be used to authorize entry into a secured area, authenticate or verify an original object, or protect a sealed container against tampering. To be effective, such devices must be difficult to copy or alter and their function or effect must be difficult to simulate. They must also be easy and efficient to use and sufficiently low in cost to be justifiable. Some of the classical problems addressed with such devices are the following:
1. The need for an identification card that is impossible to duplicate, alter, or use in a fraudulent manner.
2. The need of a tamper proof seal that cannot be covertly broken and resealed.
3. The need to mark an inspected item such that, at a later time, a quick inspection will identify it unquestionably as the same item that was previously inspected and marked. Such need exists, for example, to mark a genuine item so that it can be identified later as genuine.
4. The need for security devices that cannot be read by unauthorized persons.
5. The need for security devices that are much less expensive to produce and use than the items they protect.
This invention relates to the use of holograms and the holographic process to produce a security label. A prior art example of holographic security labeling which has prevented the loss of many millions of dollars in revenues is found in the use of embossed holograms (U.S. Pat. No. 4,725,111, February 1988, Weitzen, et. al.). Embossed holography is an extremely unsophisticated commercial application of holography that is a trade-off between cost and effectiveness. Unfortunately, counterfeiters in recent years have mastered the copying of the simple holographic label, rendering its value as a security device questionable.
Ordinary holograms were good security marking devices only as long as they were extremely difficult for counterfeiters to produce. They still provide an obstruction to the unsophisticated counterfeiter who does not have access to hologram production technology; however; hologram production technology is now so widespread that holograms are widely available and consequently no longer deter counterfeiters of many devices.
Various methods have been developed to enhance the security of marking labels. Such features are designed to make the label more difficult to copy or more expensive for the counterfeiter to produce. One of the methods used to produce an advanced holography security label that results in more sophisticated security features is called a surface-referenced hologram (Ser. No. 08/265,676 June 1994, Haines). The surface-referenced hologram must be viewed by using a reference wave that is unique to the surface on which the hologram is placed. That is, the reference wave is derived from the light scattered by the surface itself. The main disadvantage with surface-referenced holograms as security devices is that they can be copied by using a holographic recording process. Then if the counterfeiter has the technology to create a hologram on a counterfeit surface, he can create a counterfeit part with a hologram just like the genuine part. Another disadvantage is that a counterfeiter can easily view and analyze the marking.
Many other security markings based on the diffraction of light have been produced (U.S. Pat. No. 5,095,194, March 1992, Barbanel; U.S. Pat. No. 4,563,024, January 1986, Blyth; U.S. Pat. No. 4,589,686, May 1986, McGrew; U.S. Pat. No. 5,336,871, August 1994, Colgate, Jr.). They all suffer from the shortcomings that the counterfeiter can see the information contained in the label and can copy this information, allowing him to reproduce the label by advanced techniques.
To make labels difficult for the counterfeiter to read (using amplitude sensitive devices such as CCD cameras or copy machines) Horner and Javidi have mixed the information that is to be stored in the label with random phase and amplitude coding so that the unauthorized viewer can see nothing meaningful by looking at the label. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,485,312, January 1996, Horner et. al.). This requires a system that will allow the authorized reader to read the label or, in particular, to compare the information in the label, such as a fingerprint, photograph, or other biometric data, with a reference, which is drawn from a database stored elsewhere. The Horner and Javidi system is effective in coding information in a label so that it cannot be read by an unauthorized viewer and in automatically extracting the information from the coded label. However, the label can be copied using standard interferometric means, even though it cannot be converted easily to useful information without the availability of the coding information. Also, the Horner and Javidi system requires the use of a sophisticated CCD array, computer, and Fourier transforming software. Consequently, the Horner and Javidi system is relatively complicated and expensive.